1973 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL GHAYOOR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1973 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAYOOR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL GHAYOOR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants than not only the dispute was of civil nature and no criminal offence was made out in view of the unreported decision of the Supreme Court but the applicant No. 1 had made an application (No. 50 70) under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in this Court and by a consent order the dispute was referred to the arbitration of Mr. S. M. Zahoorul Haq, Advocate. To support this contention the certified copies of the application made under section 18 of the Arbitration Act and the order passed thereon have been produced.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-One partner calling on other partner to render accounts of business and latter registering a case of misappropriation of funds against former-Dispute one of civil nature-Misappropria tion by a partner-Does not amount to an offence-Parties having further agreed to refer dispute to arbitration-Question of proceeding in criminal Court, held, did not arise-Proceedings quashed.
Judgment & Decree
Cr. A. No. K. 17 of 1969; A I R 1951 Cal. 69 and A I R 1965 S C 1433 rel. Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Applicant. Muhammad Zafar Khan for A: G. for the State. Date of hearing: 25th October 1971. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 408 P. P. C. The applicants and Haroon Rashid became partners any obtained royalty contract from the Deputy Commissioner Karachi. Each of the parties had equal shares. Subsequently there arose some dispute between the parties on 12th March 1970. The petitioners called upon Haroon Rashid to render accounts of the business and on the other hand Haroon Rashid sent an application dated 11th March 1970, to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police making allegations against the petitioner that they had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2 lacs as well as one motor-car and three Honda Scooters, and further they had unlawfully occupied the office premises. Consequently the case was registered on 20th April 1970, and the applicants were challaned on 31st May 1971, i.e., more than a year after the registration. of the case for an offence under section 408, P. P. C. Consequently the present application was filed to quash the proceedings. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants than not only the dispute was of civil nature and no criminal offence was made out in view of the unreported decision of the Supreme Court but the applicant No. 1 had made an application (No. 50 70) under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in this Court and by a consent order the dispute was referred to the arbitration of Mr. S. M. Zahoorul Haq, Advocate. To support this contention the certified copies of the application made under section 18 of the Arbitration Act and the order passed thereon have been produced. Thus after those proceedings having been drawn the question of the proceedings to be taken in criminal Court does not arise. Moreover, it was held by the Supreme Court in unreported decision in Criminal Appeal No. K. 17/69, that a misappropriation by a partner would not amount to an offence but it was dispute of a civil nature. The learned counsel quoted two more authorities reported in A I R 1951 Cal. 69 and A I R 1965 S C 1433, which also fully support his contention. In the circumstances, I allow the application and quash the proceedings. Petition accepted.